IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 660 /BANG/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 07 - 08 SHRI. P. N. NAVEEN KUMAR, NO.377/61, 2 ND FLOOR, 43 RD CROSS, S. P. ROAD, 9 TH MAIN, 5 TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 041. PAN : AAWPN 6574 E VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SMT. SHEETAL, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. SUSAN THOMAS, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 31 . 0 5 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 . 0 6 .201 8 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, INTERALIA , ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER IN THE MANNER HE DID. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN PASSING THE EX-PARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ON THE LAST HEARING DATE WHEN THE REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED AND REQUESTED FOR CLUBBING OF THE APPEAL WITH OTHER SIMILAR APPEALS FOR WHICH THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS APPROVED AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE EX-PARTE ORDER AS PASSED IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ALSO GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 234B WHICH IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT ON THE ITA NO. 660/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 3 REASSESSMENT, THE INTEREST BE CHARGED FROM THE DATE OF ORIGINAL ORDER I..E., 143(1) AND THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ORDER, THE AO SHOULD HAVE CHARGED FROM THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. 2. THOUGH VARIOUS GROUNDS ARE RAISED, BUT THE MAIN GROUND RAISED IN THESE GROUNDS IS WITH REGARD TO EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) HAD DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. IN HIS ORDER, HE HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED AS TO HOW THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN HIS ORDER, THE CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY MENTIONED THAT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS PLACED THE RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 3. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. THOUGH HE HAS RECORDED IN HIS ORDER THAT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON DIFFERENT DATES, BUT HE FAILS TO RECORD SPECIFICALLY WHETHER NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LET THE MATTER BE SENT BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO HIS FILE FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEALS AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESS STANDS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 TH JUNE, 2018. SD/- SD/- BANGALORE. DATED: 08 TH JUNE, 2018. /NS/* (INTURI RAMA RAO) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 660/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) - II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE.